A Jacob Rosecrants Tale in Two Parts

Part Two: Where does that campaign money really go?

Money. It always comes down to money. And let me tell you, reader, I’m not sure people really care, at least those that should. Its more likely a lethal combination of apathy, being overworked, and relying upon technology to decipher things that are clearly not correct. Let me explain.

When I started looking into the protective order filed against Jacob Rosecrants, I didn’t limit myself to an incident that occurred in 2009. I started diving deep into connections, relationships, and campaign money. Pump the brakes for one second. I didn’t do a forensic audit, mainly because I don’t have access to all records to do one. Reaching out to the Ethics Commission, I posed a few questions to them. Nothing overly difficult to answer, but a guide to feel how they felt about some of the things I saw on the Guardian reporting system.

After multiple emails and phone calls, being told that the Ethics Commission was busy with legal deadlines and how I kept missing people working out of the office, I finally got answers after three weeks. Maybe this is normal, maybe it isn’t. My take on the answers were this: Candidates need to report and keep records. If something is incorrect, and if they realize it and deem it important enough, they’ll ask for those records. And if all of that happens, it likely is not going to be public record in most outcomes.

I’ll discuss some of these issues in more detail below.

One other thing before we move on to campaign money. In Part One, I didn’t mention a monetary detail that happened in 2009, which was a financial obligation that Rosecrants had to Robin Rougier, his partner, in the form of child support.

My reporting will never try to decide relationship dynamics. I am neither a psychologist nor a marriage counselor. I am a journalist presenting facts, allowing readers come to their own conclusion.

After his special election win in 2017, Rosecrants began campaigning for reelection in 2018.

Exactly one month after filing, he makes his first payment to Resistance Consulting, LLC. A company he will utilize for the four years of its active status, with his last payment to them listed as August 23, 2021.

What is very peculiar, Rosecrants is on the record giving money to Resistance Consulting exactly one day after its creation, which you can find out with a simple business search through the Oklahoma Secretary of State website.

Let’s talk about this company for a second. When I started looking into it, I noticed a few things right off. This company, as reported in the Guardian system (don’t search with the LLC attached), received a total of $65,080.83, in which the lion’s share came from Rosecrants’ campaigns, which was $51,699.88. For quick math, and rounding up to the nearest whole number, that is 80% of all monies coming from his campaign. Rosecrants is a good client to have. For comparison, from the first date to the last date of payment to the company, 29% of all money raised by Rosecrants went to Resistance Consulting, LLC.

At a local level, I couldn’t find much on Resistance Consulting making much money. One local person that did pay for their services was Allison Petrone, the former Norman City Councilwoman for Ward 3. For those who aren’t aware, Rosecrants’ HD 46 and Norman’s Ward 3 overlap.

I’m sure there is a smattering of other funds that went into Resistance Consulting, but this is a good picture to the impact the business was having in local elections, especially Norman.

Who runs the company Resistance Consulting? A basic business search will not produce that information. So, reaching into my wallet, I ordered the documents from the state to find out that name: Krystal Golding-Ross, the former Chair of the Cleveland County Democratic Party.

I reached out to Golding-Ross (she is no longer married, and I am not sure if she still goes by Ross, but for continuity, I will refer to her as such), asking her for comment on what I found. Over the phone, she told me two things: she stepped away from politics, and she does not answer questions about her former employees. I sent her a text with more information that would be in my reporting, and she declined to respond back.

One of the questions I posed to Golding-Ross was the issue of conflict of interest, and did she perceive any with her company and Rosecrants. Of course, as I already stated, she did not make any comments. Ultimately, I had to reach out to a former employee of Resistance Consulting: Robin Rougier. Like I said in Part One, Robin declined to give me any further insight into any questions I asked, including her time working for Golding-Ross’ company. In order to show that she did work for the company, I turned to Rougier’s LinkedIn page.

Her page clearly states that she started working for the company in June of 2018. Again, the company is inactive, so she isn’t actually working for Resistance Consulting, LLC at this time. But that doesn’t mean she isn’t getting paid working for campaigns.

By going back into the Guardian system, and searching for Rougier’s name, you’ll see that starting January of this year, Rosecrants’ campaign has paid Rougier an additional $4,251.75.

This is a great area in my reporting to let you, reader, in on a secret. Paying a family member, or a partner, for services is allowed and passes muster by the Ethics Commission. I specifically asked the commission if they keep a matrix on reasonable service costs, and they do not. No more than customary compensation is the jargon in Rule 2.43 in the 2021 Annotated Ethics Rules. Read those if you have nothing better to do.

I also sent the Ethics Commission three specific photos of Guardian entries that were not logged correctly (not exhaustive in nature), according to their own rules and Staff Memorandum 2017-02.

All three of these expenditures are incorrectly notated, and Rougier is listed as being paid for bookkeeping services, though there is no way for me to determine if she is the person who actually inputs this information into the system. Rosecrants making a $418.69 in-kind contribution is not a officeholder expense. Rosecrants making a donation to Annie Menz’s campaign is not an ordinary and necessary campaign expense. Finally, a campaign consulting expenditure, according to Staff memorandum 2017-02 cannot simply state “campaign consulting.” This is the language of the memorandum:

Ethics Rules 2.104 (political party committees), 2.105 (political action committees), and 2.106 (candidate committees) require expenditures made to compensate political consultants and similar consultants to be “reported by identifying the type of services provided to the campaign by the consultants.” To comply with this provision, campaigns should provide adequate detail to inform the public of the purpose of the consulting services. Reporting consulting services as simply “consulting” is insufficient to meet the disclosure requirements. Such a description provides little or no information available to the public on the type of service being provided by the consultant to the committee.

The term “consulting” is too broad to provide sufficient information to inform the public on the actual service provided to a committee. Consulting services should be described with sufficient information to inform the public about the services provided by the consultant to the committee. For example, some consultants may offer consulting for website design or advertising messaging. Such activities should be reported as “website design consulting,” “advertising consulting,” or similar descriptions. Often, consultants provide advice concerning use of social media, which should be reported as “social media consulting.” Similarly, consulting on how to conduct a campaign, including helpful strategies in conducting a successful campaign, should be reported as “strategic consulting.” Committees will also use consultants to assist with the best methods to raise funds for the campaign and such services should be reported as “fundraising consulting.” In general, consultants provide a variety of services to committees, and committees 2 Staff Memorandum 2017-02v.3 should provide sufficient information to disclose the types of consulting services that are paid for using committee funds.

If you are to go into the Guardian system and read entries, you will see hundreds of entries that only state “campaign consulting.” If all politicians, Democrats and Republicans, aren’t going to follow the simple rules and be held accountable by the Ethics Commission, then why follow any of the rules? Why even have the rule in the first place? Since the language is very specific about the “public,” is it actually up to all of us to do the legwork? And as Rosecrants said to me over our brief phone call, he believes it is on the Ethics Commission to catch something wrong. I’m a believer that the responsibility falls upon the person logging the information into the system. And as mentioned at the start of the report, the Ethics Commission seems really busy on other things, not policing the small details.

As this reporting comes to a close, I’ll share a final few things my reporting found. Remember Petrone? In 2021, when Resistance Consulting appeared to be burning out, Petrone paid Rougier $1450.

The last thing is Annie Menz, who worked as an executive assistant for Oklahoma Senator Michael Brooks. The Ethics Commission stated that they did not see any issue with Menz being a paid consultant by the Rosecrants campaign, stating there are no rules keeping someone from a second job. If anything, it would be up to senate leadership to determine if an executive assistant could work in that capacity, while also doing paid work for another person in the Oklahoma legislature. I reached out to Senator Greg Treat (whose purview this would fall under) via phone calls and email. I never received a response. As of this writing, no one has given me an answer on if this is sanctioned by any senate rules. Given the lack of information provided in the Guardian reporting, I’m not sure exactly what consulting services she was being paid for by Rosecrants.

What I can show is the breakdown of funds given to her by Rosecrants up to and a little beyond her filing to run to represent HD 45. From November 2, 2021 to May 17, 2022, Rosecrant’s campaign (minus that $100 donation) has paid Menz $14,433.70. His campaign even paid her filing fees. As of today’s Guardian reporting, that is $4K more than she has raised for her whole election campaign. It can easily be inferred that Rosecrants truly has a vested interest in Menz and her potential future in HD 45.

She did make one expenditure of note on June 7, which was $250 to Rougier.

My report is not designed to say what is right or wrong, though it does point out some reporting mistakes within the Guardian system. My report provides facts and dates, allowing you, the reader, to once again come to whatever conclusion you see fit. And if you have questions or concerns, like I did, hopefully the Ethics Commission and Senate Leadership will be more forthcoming and timely in a response.

Semper Fidelis